## Facts

- Anthony Gandy, his brother Christopher Gandy, their sister Sharon Gandy‑Micheau, and Sharon’s husband, Durand Micheau, carried out a plan to obtain federal tax refunds by filing false tax returns for **21 fictitious trusts**.
- The group created trust documents naming trustees, successor trustees, and beneficiaries using (1) their own names, (2) acquaintances’ names, and (3) names of individuals whose identities were used without authorization.
- For each trust, the defendants obtained an Employer Identification Number (EIN) and filed IRS Form 1041 returns claiming refunds based on **nonexistent excess withholding**.
- The IRS issued refund checks on many of the filings, and the group obtained **over $360,000** in proceeds.
- During the investigation, law enforcement recovered notebooks containing names and personal identifying information (PII) for many individuals, as well as original identification documents for some victims and other records connecting stolen identities to the refund scheme.
- After a jury trial in the Eastern District of Michigan, the defendants were convicted of multiple offenses, including mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, conspiracy to commit identity theft, and illegal monetary transactions.
- Anthony, Christopher, and Sharon appealed in a consolidated Sixth Circuit appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on several counts and raising claims about counsel conflicts, the indictment, and jury instructions.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported Sharon Gandy‑Micheau’s convictions for fraud- and identity-theft-related offenses.
2. Whether sufficient evidence showed that Anthony Gandy and Sharon Gandy‑Micheau **knew** the means of identification they used belonged to real persons, as required for aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).
3. Whether bar grievances filed by Anthony and Christopher against appointed counsel created an actual conflict of interest in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
4. Whether the aggravated identity theft counts were duplicitous and, if so, whether the absence of a specific unanimity instruction warranted reversal (reviewed for plain error).
5. Whether the district court’s aiding-and-abetting instruction misstated the law.
6. Whether the evidence supported giving an aiding-and-abetting instruction.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit **affirmed** the district court’s judgment in all respects.
- The court held a rational jury could find Sharon knowingly participated in the scheme based on the trial record and circumstantial proof linking her to the creation and use of the fictitious trusts and the fraudulent filings.
- The court held the evidence permitted an inference that Anthony and Sharon knew the identifying information belonged to **actual people**, relying on the amount and detail of the PII recovered and the presence of original identification documents tied to victims.
- The court rejected the Sixth Amendment conflict claim because the bar grievances, without a showing of an actual conflict that affected counsel’s performance, did not establish a constitutional violation.
- Applying plain-error review to the duplicity/unanimity arguments, the court found no reversible error in the aggravated identity theft counts or the jury instructions.
- The court upheld the aiding-and-abetting instruction as legally correct and concluded the record supported submitting aiding-and-abetting liability to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, a conviction stands if **any rational juror** could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Aggravated identity theft under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) requires proof the defendant **knew** the means of identification belonged to another person; knowledge may be proven through circumstantial evidence, including possession and use of detailed PII and original identification documents. (See Flores‑Figueroa v. United States.)
- A Sixth Amendment conflict-of-interest claim requires an **actual conflict** and a showing that the conflict **adversely affected** counsel’s performance; a defendant’s bar grievance against counsel does not, by itself, satisfy that standard.
- Unpreserved challenges to duplicity and jury unanimity are reviewed for **plain error**, requiring a clear error that affected substantial rights and the fairness or integrity of the proceedings.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 requires intentional participation in the criminal venture with the purpose that the offense succeed; the instruction is proper when the evidence supports a finding that the defendant assisted or joined the charged conduct.

## Conclusion

In United States v. Gandy, the Sixth Circuit affirmed convictions arising from a fraudulent tax-refund scheme involving fictitious trusts, holding that the record supported the jury’s findings (including that defendants knew the stolen identifying information belonged to real people) and that the asserted counsel-conflict, indictment, and jury-instruction challenges did not justify reversal.


United States v. Gandy, 926 F.3d 248 (2019)